On Liberalism and Religion; or, Newt’s Delusional Nonsense
On Saturday, Newt Gingrich gave the commencement address to the 2007 graduating class of Liberty University. Having already cozied up to James Dobson, and establishing himself as the would-be candidate of the religious right for ’08, he used his address both to praise the university’s recently-deceased bigot-founder, Jerry Falwell, and to rail against what he called a “growing culture of radical secularism”. Here’s a sampling of his advice to the graduates:
I urge you to seek the joy of life and the after life and to rid yourself of your dry, miserable, and spiritless materialistic existence.
Actually, that’s from a speech by Osama bin Laden to the American people (as quoted in Morris Berman’s Dark Ages America, from Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris). But it fits, does it not?
In essense, what Gingrich actually asserted was that “radical secularism,” whatever that means, has taken over the United States at the expense of, and in opposition to, religion, however understood. He claimed, for example, that “[i]n hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive,” that radical secularists are using “contorted logic” and “false principles” in their attack on religion, and that “[b]asic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard”. Indeed: “It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers.”
This is, of course, sheer nonsense. You don’t have to be Christopher Hitchens to notice the prominent place religion holds in American public life today. Just turn on any of the 24/7 cable news networks, where religious “leaders” are regularly invited to opine on matters of faith and, in many cases, to spew their venom. (Gingrich’s beloved Falwell was a notorious media whore, for example, but he was just one of many of his kind.) Or just pay even casual attention to the major presidential candidates. There isn’t an atheist, agnostic, or deist among them, and they all profess their faith loudly, proudly, and whenever possible, and that goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.
For a thorough debunking of Newt’s claim that religion and the religious are somehow excluded from public life, that there is an “anti-religious bias” in the U.S., see The Carpetbagger Report: “Exactly how much more religiosity will it take before he’s satisfied? Or is it more likely that Gingrich and his receptive audience yesterday revel in some kind of delusional self-pity because a victim complex sells better than reality?” Well, yes. Such “delusional self-pity” is one of the more obvious characteristics of the conservative movement in the U.S., and it is particularly acute on the religious right. It’s what keeps the true believers politically motivated.
Otherwise, Gingrich has shown once again that he knows very little about American history — a history of secular expansionism both at home and abroad — and even less about American political thought. Given his current (and convenient) theocratic leanings, he would do well to go back and read some John Locke, preferably the Second Treatise, as well as The Federalist Papers. He may call it “radical secularism,” or whatever, but what is clear is that the United States is a politico-philosophical experiment built on the foundations of early-modern political thought, which itself — as expressed by Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, among others — was a revolution against religion, and specifically against theocracy, a revolution, that is, for liberty. In this sense, the United States is, or was intended to be, the political expression of liberal political thought, of the Enlightenment.
Life, liberty, property — according to Locke. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness — according to Jefferson. Either way, the United States was liberal and secular in its founding. The theocrats have sought to overthrow this Novus Ordo Seclorum — and at times they have been successful enough to implement elements of their illiberal agenda. Indeed, they continue to pose a significant threat to the core principles of the United States and to the American way of life. Private religiosity is one thing, after all; liberalism happily allows for the private expression of a mulitiplicity of faiths, for the place of religion, or religions, in the larger marketplace of ideas. Theocracy, however, is quite another; the domination of public life by religion, and especially by one particular religion, is anathema to liberty and to America.
In the end, what is evident is that Gingrich’s America is the America of myth. He is wrong about the place of religion in public life and he is wrong about the place of religion in America generally.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “On Liberalism and Religion; or, Newt’s Delusional Nonsense”
No doubt your view will hold some traction with about up to a third of the population, Michael, especially if you prime the anti-conservative Christian pump in the process.
However, I just checked pollingreport.com and, as a result, I would love for my least favorite political candidates to start trumpeting secularism as a campaign plank.
Gingrich might want to read Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers.
Newt’s view on religon and politics is typical of the authoritarian mindset. Even though he is certainly not hindered from talking about or preaching his beliefs, because the gov’t itself isn’t shouting the evangelical creed from the capitol building this country is against religon. He confuses obeying the first ammendment with persecution because with guys like him its never enough, all or nothing.
Second, he’s taken the next step from the “How to rile the sheep” playbook by making up an invisible, non-existent enemy to embody all the evils from the world of evangelical worship. Be sure to keep your eyes out for radical secularists, they will be hiding behind every tree ready to force you into a gay marriage any day now.
75% of Americans consider themselves Christians. There’s nothing delusional about that number, although one could question the sincerity of their belief, in many cases.
From anectdotal evidence, i.e., life, I can say that most of Christians would be happy to live in a country where their kids’ schools could teach a Bible class without being harassed by the ACLU and they could keep a plaque of the 10 Commandments in their office without the P.C. police coming after them.
Funny thing about suing the Boy Scouts, impeaching a state supreme court justice, and removing a Bible from a county courthouse – people don’t like to be bullied. That’s when they start to fight back.
There are some that think the GOP court the faithful because many are middle or lower class, and would never vote for their economic policies which break up union power and favor the investor class. Why else would a three time divorcee, who left Congress under an ethical cloud, suddenly become so devoted to Christianity and to spreading Falwell’s doctrine to the rest of us? Political pandering plain and simple- Jimmy Carter was and is a better Christian. Newt doesn’t get that its not about what comes out of your mouth, but what you do with your life that counts. How many hours has he spent on worthy causes?
Blackshard, what if the religon was something other than Christian being represented in these publicly funded areas? Say instead of the 10 commandments someone put up a copy of Sharia Law? Instead of a Bible class being taught it was a teacher leading kids in Hindu prayer?
Non-christians don’t like to be bullied either. Fortunately we have an ammendment to back us up, even though some communities seem to not have read it very carefully.
Well, if I lived in a country that was 75% Muslim, I suppose I’d expect to get it rubbed in my face quite a bit, just as a matter of course. No, I wouldn’t like it, but I wouldn’t take it on myself to try to change a nation’s way of life either.
(Of course it goes without saying that it’s safe to crusade against the majority religion in the U.S. and in Iran, etc. But pretend with me that one could take on the imams safely. It would still be foolish. And petty.)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, right?
It doesn’t back you up; casual interpretations do.
Sam,
Certainly blackshards ought to respond to you, but in the meantime, I can’t help but object to your (1) somewhat turning the First Amendment on its head and (2) assailing government by the majority.
Absolutely, you can display your Quran and recite Hindu prayer on whatever property you rightfully control. What the Christians are railing against is why YOU should be able to say they can’t display a manger scene at Christmas (in a department store window). That’s the First Amendment.
Now, let’s move onto the public property displays or public school curriculums. Essentially, that is the rule by the majority…..if a majority of the community supports the manger display in the public park or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the “under God” in it at the local fourth grade, you the minority, should not be enabled to undo that will of the majority simply because it may offend you. In that case, First Amendment protections do not apply.
Oops, too quick. I forgot to add the nativity scene needs an auxiliary secular display to qualify it under the Supreme Court ruling.
How is forcing children to recite an oath to God, or pray to him in a publicly funded and mandatory setting like school not in conflict with the part of the first ammendment about “not respecting an establishment of religon”? Its literally forcing kids to worship with no respect to the beliefs their familes actually hold. The only way to hold true to that goal in the first ammendment is to not make worship to any religon part of public institutions. That goes for schools, courts, all of them.
Dept store windows and holidays I could care less about, but when we are talking about the educational and judicial systems that are the backbone of this country I think its important we know that there is a difference. Its then being forced on people via gov’t influence, not commericial. Please note there is no clause in there for percentage makeup of the population being some kind of mitigating factor.
Oh, and no one is trying to change the nations way of life either. You talk of a “Crusade against the majority religon”, and thats utter BS. No one is shutting down churches or preventing worship or persecuting anyone. Whats being asked is perfectly reasonable, don’t make people swear oaths to religous icons in order to be part of public systems meant for EVERYONE. The first ammendment was written very clearly on this, it is not a casual reading.
Oh and another thing for Casual. You are completely wrong about the majority rule in this matter. The ammendments are there expressly to protect the minority segments of the population from abuse at the hands of the majority. The majority will pass laws, but not if they are in opposition to rights that are guranteed to everyone, minority and majority alike.
What is this thing conservatives love to say about manger scenes in a department store? I can’t find anything to back it up anywhere.
It was the likes of Newt Gingrich that converted me to radical secularism. Before the ‘war on religion” campaign, I was happy to live and let live. Some things bothered me from each camp, but I never expected to get through life without being irritated now and them.
Now I am radical, indeed.
Thanks, Newt and friends.
Can’t stop to chat. I’ve got to report back to secularism central for new orders on undermining the American way.